Read on Twitter
This is not to downplay the horror of the Chernobyl disaster, but we now have powerful evidence that it didn't cause germline mutations in survivors' children. The rate was no higher than average even among the children of the heroic liquidators.
Thread/ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365
Thread/ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/04/21/science.abg2365
This is not surprising – it was the same for Hiroshima and Nagasaki: horrendous as the immediate and ongoing harms to survivors were, there were no detectable transgenerational effects. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11340/health-risks-from-exposure-to-low-levels-of-ionizing-radiation
Children are born with disabilities all over the world. But in the regions close to Chernobyl, children with visible disabilities were sought out by journalists as if at a mediaevel circus. It was grossly unethical and unscientific.
Much of the book of graphic photos by Paul Fusco, “Chernobyl Legacy”, with a foreword by Kofi Annan, was filled with black and white horror-shots of children with severe disabilities and “deformities”. There is no evidence that these conditions were linked to Chernobyl.
God knows what impact this exploitative journalism had on the children and their parents. God knows how much terror they spread in the general population. But those of us who objected on ethical and scientific grounds were labelled radiation deniers.
I’m discussing this not because I want to downplay the dangers of ionising radiation, but because, on this and every issue, *we have to follow the science*. Otherwise we spread unnecessary fear. We divert people from useful campaigns into fairytales. And we waste our own time.
And there's an interesting question here:
Why have we, as a society, overplayed the dangers of nuclear power and ionising radiation, while underplaying the dangers of fossil fuels and climate breakdown?
Why have we, as a society, overplayed the dangers of nuclear power and ionising radiation, while underplaying the dangers of fossil fuels and climate breakdown?
I think there are two main reasons:
A. Understandable concern about the connection in the early days between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
B. It's an alien, novel source of useful energy, while burning stuff is as familiar to us as the backs of our hands.
A. Understandable concern about the connection in the early days between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
B. It's an alien, novel source of useful energy, while burning stuff is as familiar to us as the backs of our hands.
C. Displacement. When you're faced with something really big, it's tempting to turn away and attack something smaller.
As a result, much of the concern that should have been directed at coal - a far greater threat to human health - was diverted to nuclear https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/nuclear-scare-stories-coal-industry
As a result, much of the concern that should have been directed at coal - a far greater threat to human health - was diverted to nuclear https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/nuclear-scare-stories-coal-industry
Some people cling to irrational fears, almost as if they were a comfort blanket.
It's a strange and paradoxical phenomenon. The threat they perceive is the threat of someone challenging their fear.
It's a strange and paradoxical phenomenon. The threat they perceive is the threat of someone challenging their fear.
